Aditya Ceramics A Partnership Firm vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Aditya Ceramics, a partnership firm, challenged an assessment order passed on 14.10.2019 under Section 62 of the Bihar Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had also filed an appeal against this order, but it was dismissed on 24.08.2022 due to being filed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 107(4) of the Act. The petitioner then approached the High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging both the assessment order and the dismissal of the appeal. The Court noted a relevant Central Government notification, Notification No. 06/2023 dated 31.03.2023, issued on the recommendations of the GST Council.

Held

The Court acknowledged that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is generally not permissible for challenging an assessment order and the dismissal of a delayed appeal when statutory remedies exist. However, the Court took cognizance of Notification No. 06/2023 dated 31.03.2023, issued by the Central Government on the recommendations of the GST Council. The Court observed that in the context of this notification, a return can be filed, which would necessitate a redone assessment. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to comply with the provisions of Notification No. 06/2023. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to take steps as per the notification, implying a fresh opportunity to regularize their tax compliance and have the assessment reconsidered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an assessment order and the subsequent dismissal of an appeal due to delay, when statutory remedies were available and not properly availed. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner is before the High Court challenging the assessment order and the dismissal of the appeal. While not explicitly stated, the petitioner likely sought relief from the High Court due to the perceived injustice or the availability of a new avenue for resolution through the mentioned notification. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the State of Bihar, likely argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the appeal was dismissed on grounds of delay. The assessment order and the dismissal of the appeal were passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), respectively.